Trotsky’s Diplomacy and a Certain Party Platform

Published:Sotsial-Demokrat, No. 25, December 8 (21), 1911.

      Published according to theSotsial-Demokrattext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[1974],

      Moscow,Volume 17,

      pages360-364.Translated:Dora CoxTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Trotsky’sPravda, No. 22, which appeared recently
after a long interval in which no issue was published, vividly illustrates
the decay of the petty groups abroad that attempted to base their existence
on their diplomatic game with the non-Social-Democratic trends of
liquidationism and otzovism.

Thepublication appeared on November 29, New Style, nearly a month
after the announcement issued by the Russian Organising
Commission.Trotsky makes no mention of this whatsoever!

Asfar as Trotsky is concerned, the Russian Organising Commission does
not exist. Trotsky calls himself a Party man on the strength of the fact
that to him the Russian Party centre, formed by the overwhelming majority
of the Social-Democratic organisations in Russia, means nothing. Or,
perhaps it is the other way round, comrades? Perhaps Trotsky, with his
small group abroad, is just nothing so far as the Social-Democratic
organisations in Russia are concerned?

Trotskyuses the boldest type for his assertions—it’s a wonder he
never tires of making solemn vows—that his paper is “not a factional but
a Party organ”. You need only pay some little attention to the contents of
No. 22 to see at once the obvious mechanics of the game with thenon-PartyVperyodand liquidator factions.

Takethe report from St. Petersburg, signed S. V., which advertises theVperyodgroup. S. V. reproaches Trotsky for not having published
the resolution of the St. PetersburgVperyodgroup against the
petition

campaign,[1]sent to him some time ago. Trotsky, accused by theVperyodgroup of “narrow factionalism” (what black
ingratitude!), twists andturns, pleading lack of funds and the fact that his paper does not appear
often enough. The game is too obvious:

We will do you a good turn, and you do the same for us—we (Trotsky) will
keep silent about the fight of the Party people against the otzovists and,
again, we (Trotsky) will help advertiseVperyod, and you (S. V.)
give in to the liquidators on the question of the “petition
campaign”. Diplomatic defence of both non-Party factions—isn’t that the
sign of a true Party spirit?

Ortake the florid editorial grandly entitled
“Onward!”. “Class-conscious workers!” we read in that editorial. “At
the present moment there is no more important [sic!]  and comprehensive
slogan [the poor fellow has let his tongue run away with him] than freedom
of association, assembly, and strikes.” “The Social-Democrats,” we read
further, “call upon the proletariat to fight for a republic. But if the
fight for a republic is not to he merely the bare [!!] slogan of a select
few, it is necessary that you class-conscious workers should teach the
masses to realise from experience the need for freedom of association and
to fight for this most vital class demand.”

Thisrevolutionary phraseology merely serves to disguise and justify
the falsity of liquidationism, and thereby to befuddle the minds of the
workers. Why is the slogan calling for a republic thebareslogan
of aselect fewwhen the existence of a republic means that it
would be impossible to disperse the Duma, means freedom of association and
of the press, means freeing the peasants from violence and plunder by the
Markovs, Romanovs, and Purishkeviches? Is it not clear that it is just the
opposite—that it is the slogan of “freedom of association” as a
“comprehensive” slogan, usedindependentlyof the slogan of a
republic, that is “bare” and senseless?

Itis absurd to demand “freedom of association” from the tsarist
monarchy, without explaining to the masses that such freedom cannot be
expected from tsarism and that to obtain it there must be a republic. The
introduction of bills into the Duma on freedom of association, and
questions and speeches on such subjects, ought to serve us Social-Democrats
as an occasion and material for our agitation in favour of a republic.

The“class-conscious workers should teach the masses to realise from
experience the need for freedom of association”! This is the old song of
old Russian opportunism, the opportunism long ago preached to death by the
Economists. Theexperienceof the masses is that the ministers are
closing down their unions, that the governors and police officers are daily
perpetrating deeds of violence against them—this is realexperience
of the masses. But extolling the slogan of “freedom of association”
as opposed to a republic is merely phrase-mongering by an opportunist
intellectual who is alien to the masses. It is the phrase-mongering of an
intellectual who imagines that the “experience” of a “petition” (with
1,300 signatures) or a pigeon-holed bill is something that educates the
“masses”. Actually, it is not paper experience, but something different,
the experience of life that educates them; what enlightens them is the
agitation of the class-conscious workers for a republic—which is the sole
comprehensive slogan from the standpoint of political democracy.

Trotskyknows perfectly well that liquidators writing in legal
publicationscombinethis very slogan of “freedom of
association” with the slogan “down with the underground party, down with
the struggle for a republic”. Trotsky’s particular task is to conceal
liquidationism by throwing dust in the eyes of the workers.

Itis impossible to argue with Trotsky on the merits of the issue,
because Trotsky holds no views whatever. We can and should argue with
confirmed liquidators and otzovists; but it is no use arguing with a man
whose game is to hide the errors of both these trends; in his case the
thing to do is to expose him as a diplomat of the smallest calibre.

Itis necessary, however, to argue with the authors of the theses of
the platform that got into No. 22 ofPravda. The error they are
committing is due either to their not being familiar with the December 1908
resolutions of the R.S.D.L.P., or to their not having rid themselves
completely of some liquidationist andVperyodwaverings of
thought.

Thefirst thesis says that the regime established on June 3, 1907,
represents, “in fact, the unrestricted domination ofthe feudal-type landed nobility”. It goes on to point out that they are
“disguising the autocratic and bureaucratic nature of their domination
with the pseudo-constitutional mask of a State Duma that actually possesses
no rights”.

Ifthe landowners’ Duma “actually possesses no rights”—and that is
true—how, then, can the domination of the landowners be “unrestricted”?

Theauthors forget that the class character of the tsarist monarchy in
no way militates against the vast independence and self-sufficiency of the
tsarist authorities and of the “bureaucracy”, from Nicholas II down to
the last police officer. The same mistake, that of forgetting the autocracy
and the monarchy, of reducing itdirectlyto the “pure”
domination of the upper classes, was committed by the otzovists in 1908–09
(seeProletary, supplement to

No. 44),[2]by Larin in 1910, it is now being committed by some
individual writers (for instance,

M. Alexandrov[3]), and also by N. R-kov who has gone over to the
liquidators.

Theanalysis of the domination of the feudal landowners assisted by the
bourgeoisie, given in the December (1908) resolutions, strikes at the roots
of this error.

Thesecond thesis refers to the minimum programme of the R.S.D.L.P.,
and in this connection “a particularly prominent place” is given to many
demands, such as the demand for freedom of association and for the
confiscation of the landed estates, but no mention is made of a
republic. In our opinion, this is wrong. While we fully admit that it is
absolutely necessary to agitate for freedom of association, we consider
that the slogan calling for a republic must be given the greatest
prominence.

Thethird thesis: “The necessity of new revolutionary action on the
part of the masses”, without which our demands cannot be achieved.

Thislast statement is absolutely true, but it is only half the
truth. Marxists cannot confine themselves to a reference to the
“necessity” of new action on the part of the masses; they must first show
the causes that give rise (if they do give rise) to a new revolutionary
crisis. Unless there is such a crisis, “action”—which, indeed, is
always “necessary”—is impossible.

Theauthors are actuated by the best of revolutionaryintentions, but there is some defect in their method of thought. The
December (1908) resolutions deduce the “necessity” of new action by a
process of reasoning that is not so simple, but that is, however, more
correct.

Thefourth thesis: “The possibility of such new revolutionary action
on the part of the masses in the more or less Immediate future, and
relentless criticism ... of the counter revolutionary role of the
bourgeoisie”, etc.

Criticismis always necessary,irrespectiveof “the
possibility of action”, even at a time when action on the part of the
masses is definitely impossible. To tie up the possibility of action with
criticism means confusing the Marxistline, which isalwaysobligatory, withoneof the forms of the struggle
(a particularly high form). That is the first error. And the second error
may be described by the saying:

“Don’t halloo until you are out of the wood”. It is pointless to talk of
the possibility of action, this must be proved by deeds. In a platform it
is sufficient to note that a revival has set in, and to emphasise the
importance of carrying on agitation and paving the way for the action of
the masses. Events will show whether the action of the masses will become a
fact in the near or not so distant future.

Thefifth thesis is splendid, for it stresses the immense importance of
the State Duma as a platform from which to carry on agitation.

Wedo not know who the authors of the platform are. But if (judging by
certain indications) they are RussianVperyod-ists they should be
warmly congratulated on having got rid of one error of theVperyodgroup. They are Vperyod-ists with the conscience of Party people, for they
give a straight forward and clear answer to one of the “vexed”
questions. TheVperyodgroup, however, is deceiving the Party in
the most unscrupulous manner; for it is defending and screening otzovism,
and to this day, December 1911, it has not given a straight answer to the
question of participation in the Fourth Duma. To treat such a group as
Social-Democratic is a mockery of Social-Democracy.

[1]Thepetition campaignrefers to a fuss created by the
liquidators and Trotsky for agitational purposes around a petition drawn up
by the St. Petersburg liquidators in December 1910. The petition, which
demanded freedom to organise unions, to hold meetings, and to strike, was
to be sent to the Third Duma in the name of the workers. However, the
petition campaign was not a success among tile workers, only 1,300
signatures having been collected. The Bolsheviks exposed the
“liquidationist” character of tile petition campaign, and the Resolution
of the Sixth (Prague) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. “The
‘Petition Campaign’\thinspace” defined the attitude of the Bolsheviks (see
pp. 479–80 of this volume).

[2]Leninis referring to the resolution put forward by the St. Petersburg
otzovists at the extended meeting of the St. Petersburg Committee prior to
the December All-Party Conference, 1908 (the Fifth Conference of the
R.S.D.L.P.). The resolution was published in the supplement to No. 44 ofProletary, on April 4 (17), 1909. A critical analysis of this
document made by Lenin appears in the same supplement, in an article
entitled “A Caricature of Bolshevism”

[3]M.Alexandrov—the Bolshevik M. S. Olminsky. Here and else
where, Lenin is referring to his pamphletThe State, Bureaucracy and
Absolutism in the History of Russia, St. Petersburg, 1910.